You cannot *imagine* how many people have asked me to clarify this relationship :-).
I hope this blog entry helps, but (as I noted) the future of Struts is decided here, not by anything I, or anyone else, might opine elsewhere. Craig On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:15:57 -0400, Thomas L Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Roche Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:49:45 -0500 > >>>> summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major > >>>> publication* > > OK, mebbe it'll get cited in some major publication :-) > > >>>> * that JSF does/will not "replace Struts" > > >>>> * how JSF and Struts will likely tend to specialize, in future > > >>>> * how probable specializations will complement (and compete) in > >>>> webapp development > > Ted Husted Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:28:17 -0500 > >>> I think either of us would rather be developing Struts than > >>> evangelizing Struts. > > Tom Roche Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:00:00 -0500 > >> This is not about "evangelizing": it's about clarifying the > >> relationship between 2 large parts of J2EE's future, and correcting > >> some (apparently) false perceptions. > > So I am pleased to note: > > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/craigmcc/20040927#struts_or_jsf_struts_and > > It should be clear by now that there is overlap between Struts and > > JSF, particularly in the view tier. Over time, JSF will continue to > > evolve in the view tier area, and I'm going to be encouraging the > > Struts community to focus on value adds in the controller and model > > tiers. > > Now I can whack the locals who say "Struts? Isn't that what Faces > replaces?" :-) > > Thanks, Tom "hoping to tool for Tiles this rev, at last" Roche > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
